Essays on Compare and contrast Management theories from scientific school of management and the humainst school Assignment

Tags: Management
Compare and contrast management theories from scientific school of management and the humanist school Compare and contrast management theories from scientific school of management and the humanist school   Management theories can be discussed both from the scientific school as well as the humanistic school. These schools are of varying perspectives based on the basics of their assumptions. The schools of thought apply differently in the workplace setting. This essay shall attempt to compare and contrast the humanist school of management with the scientific school. As seen in the work of Giachetti (2011) the humanistic school of management focuses on drifting away from the organisation perspective of management to focusing on the individuals in the organisation. As Mayo- the humanistic school proponent- would argue individuals are emotional beings as well as social ones that need to have satisfaction through meeting their needs in the workplace (Kreitner, 2008). This school of management, therefore, proposed that human beings need to be treated with a lot of respect. If this happens, the humanists argue that the workers will automatically be productive in their workplace. As opposed to the scientific management school, the human aspect of the employees is taken into account completely. One would argue that the humanistic school was a reaction to the scientific management school that viewed human beings as mechanics whose role was to work continually (Schermerhorn, 2009). As seen in the research compiled by Schermerhorn (2009), the scientific management school leads to repetition of tasks in the organisation, the workplace becomes boring and the roles become tedious by the day as the workers’ self esteem is diminished slowly. On the other hand, from the compilation of Kreitner (2008), the humanist school leads to productivity at work since job enrichment is vivid as worker satisfaction is slowly boosted. In the humanistic school, therefore, the chances of attaining organisational benefits are extremely high. For that reason, the humanist school is appealing to employees as their needs will be met. Giachetti (2011) says that the scientific school of management works with the fact that the entire production processes have to be split into different tasks then the roles are allocated to different people so as efficiency can be attained. The approach, hence, focuses on the system and its functionality as opposed to the people who work in those systems. Schermerhorn (2009) is of the opinion that the scientific management theory as proposed by Taylor is most interested in achieving economic efficiency in terms of labour productivity. This would mean that the school’s proponents had the thought of applying Science in the organisation. This explains the reason behind the school of thought focusing on workflow analysis and evaluation. The school then looked at the worker’s talents and abilities (Schermerhorn, 2009). The talented ones, however, had no major difference with the lazy ones as the tasks done were repeated. The fast workers ended up performing tasks that would have been done by the slower workers. This is indeed a major cause of demotivation among these employees under the scientific school of management. The humanistic school focused on the respect and dignity of these employees as the most important fact prior to assigning them tasks (Kreitner, 2008). All the workers were respected whether slow or fast as it is fundamental that all persons are accorded the respect they deserve. The humanists, in this case, believe that workers are not only production means, but also are end in one way or another. In contrast to the scientific management school that focuses on maximizing profits for its employees, the humanist approach criticizes the fact that organisations insist on a single managerial objective of maximizing their returns (Kreitner, 2008). The humanists believe that this aspect is way contrary to the human dignity because the workers are regarded as tools for meeting the targets set. Conclusively, it is evident that the humanistic school of management is much more inclined towards pursuing approaches that will see to the attainment of human welfare, dignity and satisfaction. The activities the employees will take part in will help not only their well being, but that of the society at large. The scientific management school deviates from the workers and emphasizes on mass production, division of work among the employees, and seeing to it that the roles assigned are completed within the set timelines. The workers are remunerated not for being in the workplace, but for the kind of output they have produced within the specified time. Physical effectiveness of an individual employee, according to this school of thought, is the blueprint of attaining overall success in the organisation. References Giachetti, R., 2011. Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architecture, and Methods. New York: CRC Press. Kreitner, R., 2008. Principles of Management. London: Cengage Learning. Schermerhorn, J., 2009. Exploring Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Contact Us